310740_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

Type of Visit: O'Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (d'Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: 2v County: Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: /�", C �a t { kpf�— / 5
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
y T-`
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish La er
C+attle
Dairy Cow
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Feeder
I INon-Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
WDesign Current
D , P,oultr, Ca aCi. Rio
I Layers
Dr
y Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Qther Turkey Poults
Other Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes a<0 C3 NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes F
DNA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - D Date of Inspection: l
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 5 L
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): /"/ J T,
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes I_'J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environments reat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes rNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
�No❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[:]Yes
<o ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
d ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑YesrNo
rN❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Docaments
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
NA
eNoo
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have ail components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes rNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [] Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: r- t{ 0 Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check 13—Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failur to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
Zon-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWW?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
KNoo❑ NA ❑ NE
F� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�jTo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #) Explaran=any Y>ES£answers:and/or. any.add�tional recommendations®or any.otherlcomments:`
s..� .�8
Use�'drawrngs'of #actyta better ezplainsituahons (use: ad+dltianages;a
al ps necessa -+��
' k C
POD 5 �-
n
Sc. �,� �t.rVQ� Sµ'�� 54—S SIGv��
-�- PL t 551.E
Reviewer/Inspector Name: (Cy � (� �� ---c- {� Phone: l'O
7 pd 73�
Reviewerllnspector Signature: ����("v "l Date:
Page 3 of 3 214.12015

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
310740 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS310740
[] Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Duplin Region:
Wilmington
Date of visit:
06/22/2016 Entry Time: 12:30 pm
Exit Time: 1:15 pm Incident 0
Farm Name:
Farm 2029
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 1575 Veachs Mill Rd Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35' 02' Longitude: 78° 01' 60"
Northeast of Warsaw. On South side of SR 1307, 0.5 miles North of SR 1301.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number.
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name M NORRIS Phone:
On -site representative M NORRIS Phone :
Primary Inspector: Kevin Rowland Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 06/22/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
2529A
19.20
Lagoon
2529B
19.20
Lagoon
2529C
27.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 06I22116 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0110
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0110
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storane & Treatment
Yes No No Me
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
■ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Al2plication
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
[]
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

1.
Permit: AWS310740 Owner- Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 06/22/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
E ❑
❑
determination?
17_ Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
No
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
01313
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No,
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 310740
Inspection Date: 06/22/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
-❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
E ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
110011
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28_ Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
s ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

f
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
310740
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS310740
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County
Duplin Region:
Wilmington
Date of visit:
0312WO15 Entry
Time: 12.00 pm Exit Time: 1:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 2029
Owner Entail:
Owner.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
1575 Veachs Mill Rd
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status:
❑ Compliant
❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35° 02' Longitude:
78° 01' 60"
Northeast of Warsaw.
On South side of SR
1307, 0.6 miles North of SR 1301.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Ropresentative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name M NORRIS Phone:
On -site representative M NORRIS Phone:
Primary Inspector: Kevin Rowland Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS310740 - Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 03/28/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Mignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
2529A
19.20
Lagoon
2529E
19,20
Lagoon
2529C
27.00
page: 2

B
Permit: AWS310740 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 310740
Inspection Date: 03/28/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e_I large
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apalication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%110 Ibs.?
Total Phosphorus?
Failure to incorporate manureisludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Yes No Na No
❑ ME] ❑
❑ ME] ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
Yes No Na -He
❑ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
FEW IMIN
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
Yes No Na No
❑ M ❑ ❑
page: 3

C
Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 03PZ8115 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
1101111
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
1101111
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
1101111
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Pen -nit readily available?
❑ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑N ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 0 D
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

0
Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 03/28/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
01311
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
1101311
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
■ ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

i
■ Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number:
310740 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS310740
Denied Access
Inssection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Duplin Region:
Wilmington
Date of Visit:
03/07/2013 Entry Time: 12:00 pm
Exit Time: 1:00 pm Incident 9
Farm Name:
Farm 2029
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 1575 Veachs Mill Rd Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: ❑ C I. Murphy -Brown LLC
amp cant Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35' 02' Longitude: 78" 01' 60"
Northeast of Warsaw. On South side of SR 1307, 0.5 miles North of SR 1301.
Question Areas:
Dischrge S Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number.
Secondary O1C(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name M NORRIS Phone
Primary Inspector: Kevin Rowland Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
NEED POA FOR SLUDGE LEVELS IN LAGOON A
page: 1

Permit: AW5310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 03/07/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste structures
Dlslgnated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
2529A
19.20
Lagoon
25298
19.20
Lagoon
2529C
27.00
page: 2

0
Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 310740
Inspection Date: 03/07/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
t. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 110
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 110
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Tresilment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is•waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
01111
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑M
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
moo
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Appllcafion
Yes No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?.
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manureisludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 03/07/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes_ No No Na
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
■ ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18_ Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ E ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather cede?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 310740
Inspection Date: 03/07/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25_ Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑M
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑M
❑
❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
No
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
11000
and report mortality rates that exceed nominal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
No
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31, Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
NO
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33_ Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
0000
page: 5

I
•
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
310740 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS310740
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine County:
Duplin Region:
Wilmington
Date of Visit:
0312812012 Entry Time: 09:00 am Exit Time: 10:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 2029
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
1575 Veachs Mill Rd
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status:
❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35° 02' Longitude:
78° 01' 60"
Northeast of Warsaw.
On South side of SR 1307, 0.5 miles North of SR 1301.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Cal, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Operator Certification Number.
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Michale Norris Phone:
Primary Inspector, Kevin Rowland Phone:
Inspector Signature, Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 03/28/12 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
2529A
19.20
Lagoon
2529B
19,20
Lagoon
2529C
27.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 310740
Inspection Date: 03/28/12 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
110110
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑
M ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑01111
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑01111
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
01313
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 ibs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS310740 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 310740
Inspection Date: 03/28/12 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
determination?
17_ Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
Rainfall?
Stocking?
YYgs No Na He
❑ E ❑ ❑
❑ N ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
Yea_ No _ Na No
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS310740 Owner- Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 310740
Inspection Date: 03/28/12 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23_ If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25_ Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
1101111
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the ReviewertInspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
❑
page: 5

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: L Y162 "Arrival Time: eparture Time: County: Region: j�464
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator: '11 / /^
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o== Longitude: 0 0 0 6
Design
Current Design C►urrent Design C►urrent
Swine
Capacity
Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population C►attle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer O'Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Non -Layer I
I
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Dny Poultry ❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
El Pullets
LEI Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ TurkeX Poults
❑ Other Number of Struc#ures:
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑Yes
❑No
El NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Stnt e l Stni 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: �C
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes ;2rNo
❑ Yes ;No
Structure 5
El NA El NE
❑NA El NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes C�'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes D'No ElNA ElNE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes P�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application ��
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ElZ1 Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/imp' ovement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window [:]Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside -of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAW 4P?
❑ Yes
UI&o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
is o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination: ❑ YesJ-�Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
J2 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
19. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
�
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question # ): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewerllnspector Name Phone: Y
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
79
12/28/04' /Continued

Facility Number: ;11-700 Date of Inspection
uifea Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes VlNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes P44o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ' ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑`No
/PNo
❑ NA
El NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
P/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
X
❑ NA
[INE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
ElYeso
XN
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings: -
I �D Al
14
2.!
B
/r v� e_
- Pad�-
IeUel .rn 11F dO It
r%I;,
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Facihty-Number
Division of Water Qt(altty
O.Divisron of Soil and Water Conservation
0-'Other Agency:`
Type of Visitcoompliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
,
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: eparture Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: . Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: f� l� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = c ❑ ' = 6, Longitude: = c = 6 = .,
Design-'-,',_"- Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry
`w ❑ Wean to Finish ❑ La er
❑ Wean to Feeder �' ❑ Non -Laver
�Carrent ���
7 ❑ Feeder to Finish ,W
Farrow to Wean ,Dry E ltry
❑ Farrow to Feeder
ElFarrow to Finish ❑ La ers
❑ Gilts ❑ Non -Layers
❑ Boars ❑ Pullets
Z.
.. W ❑Turke s
"Other; ❑ Turkey Poults
" ❑ Other I ❑ Other
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ YesVl[!�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes El No ❑NA El NE
❑ Yes Ao ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes �;o ❑NA [I NE
❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

FacilityNumber: — ZDate of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes K ❑ NA ❑ NE
Struc 1 Structu e 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No El NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
PAo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
1jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
jNo
o ElNA
ElNE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
ElYes
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
/
/' No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ElYes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to'gueshau'#) Explain any YES, answers and/or any recotntuendattonssor any other e`omments� "
,.,
:Usel rawings,,of,facility to beater egplam situations {use-addrtaoiial pages'as necessary) AL
ReviewerAnspector Name [.
Reviewer/]nspector Signature:
Page 2 of 3
Phone: Tl0 S-
Date: J0,
1 V2R/114
r
Continued

Facility Number: 3-&-_750 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes No El NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps [3 Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes VNNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste
Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain
Inspections ❑
Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ YesNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
El NE
///Vo
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes )!TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes.,,ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
,A
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
04No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings: .�
Page 3 of 3 12128104

�Fa iLty. Nu
ri
Type of Visit
Reason for Visit
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
stun of Waterkual
._
ka0.jDrvrs�angoft5oil and �Wa
rote Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
ne O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other f❑ Denied Access
Arrival Time: ,G De arture Time: County, Region:
4`7 _ Owner Email:
Owner.Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: 65 !' �
Certified Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: . Latitude: E:D o =]' a Longitude: 0 ° ❑ , 0 11
Design Current
S iqe Capacci Popula 'on
Design Current
Wet Poultrey Capacity Population
_...,
Design C►orient
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ canto Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ canto Feeder 1❑
Non -Laver I ❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
�
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
pD`ryR 0, 11,111111
Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
'"`" ` �r
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers-
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
"= El Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
4 ti-; a,
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑Turke Poults
100ther
Number of Structures:Ej
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
ElNE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ElApplication Field ElOther�Ko
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ NA
ElNE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
ElYes
/h%To
t%
/YJ
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued
a

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection . 3Y
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structylp 1 St ruc 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 7 7 cs 7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes PKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes U<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes RI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 2rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑moo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) /
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes d
El NA
El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes�Zo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ElYes o
❑ NA
❑ NE

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? 1f yes, check
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes )ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes)11`No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes ;TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
Cl Yes P<O
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes ,�TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes epKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ieI discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes )�Ko
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �To
[INA ElNE
❑ Yes )E!rNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 'P4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
I2128104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number % O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
- — Other Agency
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: eparture Time: County: Region:
I
Farm Name: o Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: CY`�4 _(i'l ✓
Certified Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Latitude: E c = ' 0" Longitude: = ° = ` = fi
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer — _ _ _
I❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Daja Calf
❑ Daia Heifer
[!Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes oNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes EI—No
❑ Yes Jj No _
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Q-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: ? r- 70 Date of Inspection
1Vaste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 21Z ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes L1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Struc re I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): —7I If
3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes UNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 1;1'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
7No
[INA
ElNE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
LdNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
VrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes Eh-�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes [2'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes Q f4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes & ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
a
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 7�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 - ' Continued

Facility Number: ,� 7 Date of Inspection O
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes U�io ❑ NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ElL�J Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desi gn El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22,
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[)' o
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
(� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
aod143
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit (compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County Region:
Farm Name:�"1 Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator: /051?f
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 e = 0 « Longitude: = ° = 4 0 4{
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish ld(j
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finis
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ La er
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: El
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Conh°nued

Facility Number: 3 — Q Date of Inspection 3 (!
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
St ru e l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: C1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �l
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) &m/"/1gt1A
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #t): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other -comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
'90Vkj (7 V 7 0 �'_6
Real d - a c�, l y
Reviewer/Inspector Name - 4c.i T I Phone: �� 7<
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: �p
Pape 2 of 7 121N104 Continued

7 XU
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Sp � rle td,S tecd wed 62nly-d
I
v
T
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit ,(D'Compliance inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (aAoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Q t d Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: .2 Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �% Title:
Onsite Representative: /e/e_C [- Gr-✓
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
arrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Phone:
Region•L2- 4
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 0 0 6 Longitude: = ° [= 4 [� «
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
I [:]Layer
♦ 0 Non -Layer -- ---..- -- - --- -
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Imuacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 3 — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Strut re I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: B
Spillway?: /, r
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
It. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes_ ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination"[:]
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
y
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
121281041 Continued

Facility Number: c3 -- %y Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropiate box. ❑ W-Up ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings: `'

iType of Visit QJ Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 36 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other . ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 9 Time:
Not O erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Abof Threshold: ... _._ W.
FarmN e: - - - County:........ Q U .Y� ----------- ------- ---- �-.--------
Owner Name: .. . . ........................... ........ ................. .......... Phone No:............... .
MailingAddress: ....................... ............................................................... -..........._............................. ............... ... ..... ..................
Facility Contact: ............... ................................... -Title:.. _.... Phone No:
Onsite Representative:...r. �� ..._�� ....._ _ ...� _...... Integrator: ._....... .._.� ....-......
Certified Operator: . . . ............. . .... Operator Certification Number:__--_—.-_-_...
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 4 66 Longitude �• �4 14
Discharges & Stream Imaacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ZNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: _...._.L�l................ ......... ....--W_ .. 4 .....
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures obseTrved?J(ie—/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes o
closure plan? -
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Zo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenan�mprovement? ❑ Yes
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes o
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes r4ox
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes Q No
14. a Does the facility eq g application? lack adequate acreage for land ❑ Yes io
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
El Yes
��J
LWo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
To
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
211ro
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes L vo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes 0<O
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, []Yes 64 o
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes No
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
M".OTAY C-PoR�TS -ro LJ r tLO "6C-) To eNF- OP,DAT60 KIA - .�AJ4V A- LVC'
S q sum
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12111lo3 c.onnnuea

Facility Number: " _ Date of .Inspection
ke uired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes E N
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes y
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? El No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) El Yes N
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes rNo
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? El Yes
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 3I-35) ❑ Yes /No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No
34_ Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

1
Facility Number Date of visit: IS D3 Time: I 1.5 = DG
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted [3 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: _ 2 S 2 I _ County: t1
Owner Name: G `; ' e a i l, f Phone No:
Mailing Address -
Facility Contact: Title:
'RD
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 ' Du Longitude 0
Design,.
Currenf
t Design" Current Design G_ti recant
Swine Ca acity
P,o ulation
$oultry Ca achy P,o ulation Cattle Ca achy P,o ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -La er
'
❑Non-Dai
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons I�
❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ t a oon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps
❑ No Li uid Waste Management S stem
Dischames & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

r
Facility Number: 3 r — % Ito
Date of Inspection !$ D3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Awlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? -
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [!]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
J2'No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Co' merit`s�(refer to questiont# `� E%plain any YES answers andlor any recommendations or any other c©mmen s. u+
a s : „
Usedrawittgs facility to better sttuaYtons: (useadtlitional necessary)
of explain pages,as ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
.,
HO ►�iay��o�^t Wa_j P",AAe — i G�✓? �.'i! ie),e1'v^)ve 4.4.4 brDWh. �f
arre,rtrS 4k-? - L,4s*e i%GS Geh a;heGit 4hD4 d;,4 nb� t~ �6 44e
�[i� -3-� e Gpn �-� ed rs-�E14s 1�d►o1 red �d �;c�i�
�o-a re�res�n�4-fives �a n�1��ca�;6ti clegInv ) . 1ero( le�le� w►'��,-�1
Sd R� s a6 Dui .�k.: s i ►�.�>` d ¢H-�.
Reviewertinspector Name �— 46^ e L vq' r �,` C er Ga -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

tbo:
rvision ofVI'ater iv�sian of So il lamd Water,Consi�iesvat<on
Q'Other Agency.
Type of Visit kompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ABoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date, of Visit: p I Time: Printed on: 10/26/2000
�
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
© Permitted QTied 0 Conditionally Certified ©Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ........... o7..........
I
FarmName: .....i!,Q�............ ................................................. County: .......... .�..-..............-........-.d............
OwnerName:........................................................................................................................... Phone No: .......................................................................................
FacilityContact:............................................................'1'itle:....................................-............-.............. Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress: ............... ............................... ............. .................
Onsite Representative: .�tr f "l%YliClyv Integrator US
......................................................................... ........1 .........................J......................I.........-.........
Certified Operator: ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number:..........................-
...............
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • & 1� Longitude 0 ° 44
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder JE1 Layer T ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish JE1 Non -Layer I I ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
91 Farrow to Feeder 00 ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ soars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons raj J❑ Subsurface Drains Present jj❑ Lagoon Area J❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? [:]Yes No
Discharge originated at: ElLagoon [ISpray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. 11" discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min ! —
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes gNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes XNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ANo
S[ruct rc I Str'ujt to c 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 3 7 .41z .... .................. ....
Freeboard (inches): t�
5100 Continued on bark

Facility Number: 3 — %y Date of Inspection Printed on: 1/9/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures obsery ? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or �No
closure plan? Yes
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancetimprovement? ❑ Yes /q(No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes §'No
12, Crop type /5 6; . D6 . AAl
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes Pq No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes o
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes �No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes 9No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes PTO
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes )dNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes C�rNo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes Wo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ONO
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes *640
N' •yiolatiQtis'or deticiebaps •wire . 04 0(Wmg this,Ap1t; - Y:ott wdj-tec6iye 0o �u4OO -
corres deuce. atbotuf this visit.
Comments (refer -to gaastion #) 'Explain any -VIES answers aud/or any=recunendations ar`any_`cititer'cci�git,_.
_ µ
Use draWuigs of.faciity to betiei lain situations. use adchtional Y asM�
( P _ y)
h1�� S�j� � -��ro �l.Sl�-�7�•-� �/UJ�fS�S 17��'Sls �kl=fi/ST �'rn+� �G4�onr} `(u� 1 .
/� �✓ ��
�L/u.s //ae
S , a 4 !!✓�� C!J Y �" rI1tH�Ga!iQ ye f k-4 G��f+'oVICJ� '
Yo os��C � � .�� l
Reviewer/Inspector Name��P�%Qf�%'� ;~—
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: /� �j/�,, 'YyJp Date:

Facility Number: Date of Inspection /�� Printed on: 10/26/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
AfNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
ElYes
VNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
XNo
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
No
32. Do the Bush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
�No
lAdditionaLCoxnrnentsandtbr-Drawings::,;
A6i
5100

FACILITY START-UP INSPECTION REPORT
Sion A: ional Data System odina
Transaction Code: N Permit No. AWI310740
Date: 11-22-2000 InspectionType: Start-up Inspector: S
Facility Type: 2 Facility Evaluating Rating: 3
QA: N
Sectioq B: Facility Data - - - - - -- - - - -
Name and Location of Facility Inspected:
Carroll's Swine Farm 2529
NCSR 1351 Approx 4 miles NE of Warsaw
Entry Time: 10:00 Exit Time/Date: 12:00/11-21-00
Permit Effective Date: 9-15-00 Permit Expiration Date: 8-31-05
Names, Titles of On -Site Representatives:
Dave Nordin
Phone Number: 910-293-3434
Name, Title and Address of Responsible Official:
Don Butler
Carroll's Foods, Inc.
Post Office Box 856
Warsaw, North Carolina 28398
Phone Number: 910-293-3434 Contacted: No
(S=Satisfactory, M=Marginal, U=Unsatisfactory, N=Not Evaluated)
Permit: S Records/Reports: N
Facility Site Review: S Flow Measurement: S
Laboratory: NIA Effluent: N
Pretreatment: NIA Compliance Schedules: NIA
Self -Monitoring Program: S Operations & Maintenance: S
Sludge Disposal: N Other.
Compliance Status: Compliance

1) The fine bubble air diffusion system was providing a uniform pattern within the lagoon. The
30 Hp (320 cfrn) blower appeared quite efficient..
2) The facility appeared to 'have a neat appearance. However, no visual observation of the
bacteria feed system entry points or fixed film filtration devices could be performed.
3) A high water control has been added to the aerobic basin to terminate supply pump power in
the event of high liquid level within the lagoon.
4) Normal operations involve spray irrigation from the first stage (anaerobic) lagoon, but for
- non -routine aerobic lagoon liquid level control, spray irrigation may occur from the aerobic
lagoon. The operations personnel are reminded that proper reporting should include nutrient
management based upon the nitrogen concentration within the aerobic lagoon upon such
circumstances.
5) Non-coliform type bacteria (nitrosomonas and nitrobacter) were being fed to enhance
nitrification. In addition, pseudomonas bacteria were being added to reduce sludge production.
6) Operations personnel are encouraged to provide frost protection for all exposed pressurized
piping, valves and for the flow meter.
7) The innovative system objective is to reduce odors and plant available nitrogen
concentrations. Research is planned to measure key air quality parameters within the swine
houses.
Name and Signature of Inspector:
Jim Bushardtt 9'�d�
Agency/O a/Telephone: E&NR/Wilmington/395-3900
Date: November 27, 2000

�0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review 49 Other
Facility Number 31 740 Date of Inspection 2/2/2000
Time of Inspection 15:30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted M Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
FarmName:7.529.................................................................................................................... County: Dorm ............................................... VI!IRQ.........
Owner Name: ................................................... Carxall's-ELmd0ric ............................... Phone No: 9.10::293=3434 ..........................................................
Facility Contact: DAyx lYt rdW................................................... Title:...........................::.................................. Phone No:.........
MailingAddress: P.O..BaitA5.f.----••....................................................................................t warssw.NG.......................................................... 18398.............
Onsite Representative: Jb.WArd.jjclb$.Qa................... .................... Integrator:.CarnR'.a.ka d.9.2a:C................. ................................ .............................
Certified Operator: QyIumS.---- ...............•......... Murphy ........................................... , Operator Certification Number: .18725.............................
Location of Farm:
...................................
Latitude F35 • 02 33 Longitude 78• . ` 0_2 6 00 u
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
® Farrow to Finish
1000
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharees & Stream Impacts y
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field H Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man=made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of tfi ,$tate? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 0 No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flbwi-m gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes " M No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ................................... ..........................
Freeboard(inches): ............... 21................ ............... 22................ ............... 22............... .......... -.......................... .................................... ....................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑yes ❑ No
r.,..
3/23/99 seepage, etc) Continued on back

Facility Number: 31-740 Date of Inspection
2/2/2000
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
[--]Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? , .
❑ Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
[] No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN_
❑ Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? .,
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
N Yes
❑ No
25_ Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
•No•Yi;olaiians: t;r*&riiiericies•.vvere:rioied:duiting i iii'visii:: W6-will:receivi:no hiri ier:
..........................................................
.'�`flY!'PC.�flii lll�Pii A1'f/l�ft'*l�l��. VaG�, .�. .�. .�. �. .�. �. .�. .�. .
Greer McVicker with DWQ received a call from Mr. Dave Nordin with Carroll's, on the morning of Wednesday February 2, 2000
inform us (DWQ) that this facility had had a discharge from house(s). When Stoney and I (Greer) arrived on site, Howard Hobson
tith Carroll's was present. There was evidence of waste leaving hog house(s) and running over farm path to spray field where it pond
nd sat. Although, waste did reach the waterway in field and light flow was starting to occur toward a ditch. We (DWQ) asked Mr.
roger Butler with Carroll's, who was working on site at this time, to pile a few mounds of dirt in waterway to block waste from reachi
itch. Immediate action was taken by Mr. Butler.
This discharge appears to have resulted from houses being sited on a level that does not provide adequate drainage from the houses to
Reviewer/Inspector Name
.Ct�i�:::> ��>>-:vA;<::_:;<>�.:;::=::;=::�:ttt�R1:>�►IU�::>:-><:::::::;::>::::>::::>::>::: �:::s:<:::>::::
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

O Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review 9 Other
Facility Number 31 740 Date of Inspection 2/2/2000
Time of Inspection 15:30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted M Certified 0 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Not O erational Date Last Operated:
FarmName: 252M...................................................................................................................... County: D.upliu............................................... W..1RO.........
Owner Name: ................................................... CarjVj1!3.FftDd5Inc............................... Phone No: 210-293-,3434..........................................................
Facility Contact: D,axxl%rdln................................................... Title:
Phone No:
MailingAddress: P.0..BnxBS.b...........................................................................................!W...8MW..NC.......................................................... 2M.& .............
Onsite Representative: P txat:dNabsaa..........................................................................Integrator:C.arrall.s.Fnnds.iuc..............................................
Certified Operator: ClaytoAB................... A!i Operator Certification Number- ..1117.75.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 35 • 02 33 a Longitude r 78 • 02 00 u
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field �ther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow: in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? i ° ✓
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of ihe'State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ .Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 . Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
3/23/99 seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes 6wo
Mill
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
❑ Yes ❑ No
Continued on back

Facility Number: 31-740 r' ` Date of Inspection
2/2/2000
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
[] Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum andrrLnimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type
13, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? z ,
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? f...
❑ Yes
❑ No
Renuired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? x
© Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
9 No
23. Did Reviewer/Tnspect.or fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
9 No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
N Yes
❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
A -N0- * ► Ia'tious: air:defrciincies•were:doted:during this -visit:: V-oti ivai:receivt nb hirxtier .
[�A� 1'PG17flp(�EYIP.P 31fiNdIit Vhit;•v.cii'' .
Greer McVicker with DWQ received a call from Mr. Dave Nordin with Carroll's, on the morning of Wednesday February 2, 2000
inform us (DWQ) that this facility had had a discharge from house(s). When Stbney and I (Greer) arrived on site, Howard Hobson
nth Carroll's was present There was evidence of waste leaving hog house(s) and running over farm path to spray field where it pond
ridsat. Although, waste did reach the waterway infield and light flow was starting to occur toward a ditch. We (DWQ) asked Mr.
.oger Butler with Carroll's, who was working on site at this time, to pile a few mounds of dirt in waterway to block waste from reach
itch. Immediate action was taken by Mr. Butler. T
This discharge appears to have resulted from houses being sited on a level that does not provide adequate drainage from the houses to
Reviewer/Ina aWX
p
...::..:..
..........::::..:....:::::::....
..........
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Facility Number Date of Inspection Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 13 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered 10 Not Opera Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ...........�r.Y..Pl. 11.......0 ,Phx ...:. r.2....,r... County: ............. ,�!�'1................. .......
Owner Name:........... i�1 5.............../1........ < Phone No:
f ... ... 1� ......... .........
Facility Contact:....... Title:..........A.!!1!k.......111Y.s!SPF2�'Pl�one No:
Mailing Address: ................... ..........
Onsite Representative: Integrator: Integrator:....
Certified Operator:................................................................................................................ Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0 4 « Longitude 0 1 «
Design Current' Design, Current: Design^ ^ . Current
Swine elnPoultr y- Capacity Population Cae Ca- act :: Po ulatiom'
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ ❑ Farrow to Feeder Other
Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity,,;
❑ Gilts
❑ soars Total'SSLW
Number of Lagooils" , , ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ID Spray Field AreaT.
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon. ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed; was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Stru tore 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: j�p .� p� AIpt&U `1
Freeboard (inches): __✓✓?51.a........ �a�.�..
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3123/99
❑ Yes )j No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
Q'
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[(No
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ Yes [�No
Structure 6 ,
❑ Yes MNO
Continue on back

F'acirHy'Nurdber: -71/0 1 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Al2plication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application; ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those/designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This "facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ONO
NrYes ❑ No
❑ Yes b<No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes )91 No
❑ Yes *0
❑ Yes �To
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes §INo
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes ,No
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes geNo
❑ Yes NrNo
J: �46 •violatit?ns;oi-, deficiencies -were noted during this:visit; • Yoi} Vd1-teeeive Rio #'utther :
cairesoondence ab' Uf this visit: ..... .. . . .. •
comments (refer to question #):: Explain any =YES answers and/or any recoiiiimendatioas oe: any other comments:
]se drawtngs of:facilrty,to betrtt6r;explainl1s�ituahohs (use additional pages as riecessary) k s
�} 9
1QQW _AAU_1111_"0yj1k
Reviewer/Inspect/Name ^-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: e' t Date: �//js� /�;1DC

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection b- G-40
Odor Issues
26. DOes the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ONo
2$. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes [No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes Wo
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes KNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes VNO
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes VNo
A:dditioinal-KquLip!rWnts an ors
ratvrngs:.
1

r,
- Division of Soitand-Water,Cobservation . Operation Review
E] Drvtston of Soil and Water Conservation Compil iance'Inspectro.
Division of Water.Quality =_Compliance Inspection
UOthei• Agency. Ojreratron_Review e -
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ ins ection 0 FollOW-Up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of inspection Z
Time of Inspection Z- 24 hr. (hh:min)
Permitted,�Ceriified Conditionally Certified [� Registered E] Not Operational Date Last Operated :
CC
Farm Name: ......_.. .�-►,.` 5....._. Z $L C.ounty:...... P-�•�'C-+ °J
Y
Owner Name:...... --
Facility Contact: ..........
..Title: ..............
Flailing Address: ............................................. ......... .........
............... ....................................... ..
.G "A ��",Onsite Representative: 1eC.Av.............................. .S�.P�.�... ..+
CertifiedOperator: ................................................... .............................................................
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
..................
Phone No:
Integrator:...... Ado C.lr,,, 5........
Operator Certification Number;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
A
......................................................... .............. .................... ............. -....................................................................................................................................................... w
Latitude ' 4 Longitude ' 6 96
Design Current :`Design Current Design Current
Swine ;_ Capacity Population Poultry _: Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population••
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
arrow to Finish
Oa6
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
0-
Holding Pofids / Soli& Traps ° ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & StreamImpac
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes XNo.
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes Pol 0
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Dues discharge bypass a lagoon system? (I€yes, Notify DWQ) ❑ Yes Zf No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑"0
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? El Yes WNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure
V ture I Struc ure 2 S)rucurc 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: /,
Freeboard(inches): `f✓ . IL5 ......................................................................
5_ Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes P<O
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

'Or- 2.Sz9
Facility Number: ;fit - 7Lf D ]late of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type C' ( om%q h CafLiA
S.
7 e
❑ Yes P�q' o
❑ Yes �No
El Yes ;o
❑ Yes ZNO
❑ Yes �fo
❑ Yes ja No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certifie�IfAnimal Waste Management Plan.(CAWMP)? [I Yes ,EfNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? / ❑ Yes ,21No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes �No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ,RfNo
t5. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
t8. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes I No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes )?fNo
❑ Yes kfNo
❑ Yes )?fNo
[:]Yes WNO
o
❑ Yes
❑ Yes PINo
❑ Yes PIAo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes X No
o yiQlatigris :or .... erg. Pe w 4ere noted dt t`itrtg Ois; visit: You :wilt receive Rio ui ther ; : ;
comes on�eizce: A' ' f this visit:: :
Comments (eef&to."question #) :Explain afi Y`YF answers and/or any recommendations or:any other comments. _ W
-_
Use drawings of facihty tolietter explain.situatians (use;additional pages as necessary)
-_
-7) Sect C Arc +�Ef D �Ac.�- F�`c.� At% v JO t1V(_E r Pt'A�s oil '.a � ft cg,lecy ,av--"
la) J +�Z9� cam' °L �+I>rEOj ADD C .►'i-i•rv� �c�i-ITS Th r.S-rA8LrX4 c..s+fe_ -
t JA—,C. (- Loa vL et)af_t-Y t„rPC^1 A&2_. ,V6_ tiros r-6S
U-R-J4 14 a ) .3F j
Reviewer/Ins ector Name J $ '
p _ � .`a� �f s� � f��",���= s... ti. -�j`t! S � 5=? �� �_ `�'7 c3•J �%y8�[�� Gt�:a :�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. /}.�r�- . Date: -7 ZQ %b
3/23/99

Facility Number: 3J — 7 Date of Inspection 7 z8
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes KNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e_ residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes XfNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29..Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ,2No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ER fqo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ONo
d
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? . 'Yes ❑ No
3/23199

0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
x �
f
® Division of Water Quality
5
Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DW2 inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection a� /
Facility Number 3 -
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered (B Certified ;1 Applied for Permit © Permitted 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name Z.5-k1 County: ... NIAI'1.......................................... ................ I ......
OwnerName: .............CM.6115.....�............................................... Phone No: NQ.'.-zi.r.,34iT...........................................
Facility Contact: ..........t.Aa.....Ca4h6.................................... Title:......... ....................
I .......
I. Phone No:.......-----.......................................
ST
Mailing Address: ..... $ P..................................................I............I.......----- ...... .��. f.. S.r............................................ .. 8 ........
Onsite Representative:......!r+��.......CUA.6................................................................... Integrator:.......... u ra.1........................................................
Certified Operator; ................................................... ............. I................................................ Operator Certification Number:......................
Lar.fmn of Farm
........5 Q..A .....19_Atnr.......................................................................................................
Aor{i.. 1301
.. i3o'1 ... .......... .. ...............I........ . .. ........... ....... .
Latitude 00 f " Longitude • ram4 46
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
[p No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
j] No
[DYes
❑ No
❑ Yes 10 No
❑ Yes JM No
Continued on back

F ac lity Dumber: —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed`'
❑ Yes
No
Structures (Lapoons,11olding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. 1s storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Yes
❑ No
Structure i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: ......... !............... I.-.. ............. ............. ...........aka.-...............
Freeboard(ft):...........L.3................. ............ Z_J .............. ...NA................................................................................................................
10. is seepage observed from any of the structures?
0 Yes
119 No
IL Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
Yes
❑ No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
[:]No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
M No
Waste_Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
09'No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) -
15. Crop type ............ b?Y7t"A............................ so,"L ....... n,..--------- •......... ............. ......................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
R3 No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? -
❑ Yes
IQ No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
&Yes
❑ No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
J] No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes
❑ No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
07No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
0� Yes
❑ No
For Certified or Permitted, Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Yes
❑ No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
RNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit"
❑ Yes
0 No
[] No.violations or deficiencies. were noted -during this: visit..You.will reeei've no further
correspondence about this'.visit:
Con►ments (iefer to question #) Explain any -ES answers and/or anv recoinrseendattons.10 any Ether counnerits � 4 5
Use drai wings of facility, tobetter:explain situations (usc additional pages :as necessary) t
5. Smell e d; �4\ : to e ecnq tr�d #o Q grasse rwty� . [,.a j Oeka s6
1Oe •�lGci � � rc-secda�,
q. i,a�oo;• �-� �0.S i s ,G "o J . (..a�oo�. 6,e t -.6v id & teotA ot,..!O- i,-, a aTmlb[ _F AA
ntur.
1111a, lrms;a- "cL5 6h kt. ►twkr tx N .of 14 *'Z shauld 6e jWit� wX 6[0``� 4- K�-eC)j
14t� I i4t r (Q w. � 1L 5V1A 6 -exLjj + � ew024 cams. lli,ad rtsze)ed, i�av�. �ebL4 e*--
�- L,, aans shuJd Gip �w J eJ , Sao tin oi�r d -, VVC'SiO 1— O'X (��a,� 1 5 kov� j b e 1'tctuY .
N. te.r�.+r�,1. -,,- Prclr 1�t 3 -,kovi 1 he "-pt'yt wj,
Pa./n. Cc�r'-"O, r"r, 6,-u. a.n, 56A e
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 75/1. 14,b Date:_

SWCArflniiF� Fe6dlot,0 xv,
Or'ition,R6j"
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm;Status* Registered [I Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
Certified [I Permitted or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: .... . ....
FarmName: .... . ............. County:.--..
N Land Owner Name- . ..... . ...... Phone Na: 11 . . .....
Facility Conctact: ...... God:., ........ 51-q4A ......................... Title: . . ..... . ............... . ................. Phone No: .... . ...... . ............... . . .... . ........
Mailing Address: . . .................. . ..... . ...... 2-8m - — ------
Onsite Representative: ..... ...................... ... Integrator: . .....
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
. ... . Design -.1"®rm4n
igwtui
V
Current
2.
Swine0"P Cavieltv-Fdoulation' -aDaQtVX. ODU 2 On
apac ulie,'Uii�
❑ Wean to Feeder 11 1�ajm 0 Da
1
Feeder to Finish 0 Non -Layer 0 Non-Dairvi
Farrow to Wean
0
EiM Farrow to Feeder Ddign',UipaoW 1 .0,90
F
?5z IM Farrow to F LIM—
inish�Y Total
El Other SSU7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N-4 0 SiibSj�jrfae
Wr
NumberJ:01­�La e Drains Present
❑ 10 Spray Field Area Lagoon ❑Area
�Z '�g
..... .. ...
Genej3l
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? El Yes JZ No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? D Yes ETNo
Discharge originated at. 0 Lagoon 0 Spray field El Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [I Yes 0 No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water`? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 1C1 No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) [:]Yes [XNo
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? [] Yes C1 No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? 0 Yes No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes No
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement? Continued on back

Facility Number: ..1] .......
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structyrgs fllaaoons.and/or Holding_Pondsl
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Structure 4
❑ Yes Jallo
❑ Yes &No
❑ Yes 5ZNo
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 5 Structure 6
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
IN No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
9. No
12_
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
5Z Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
RNNo
Waste A lication
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
CKNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type __..... ...... _........ ..... S ..Ir.... ............ .......
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
CRNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[3 No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®.No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
R) No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
IR No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
IN No
For
Certified Facilities QnLy
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
J,No
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
& No
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
ER No
Comments (refer to queshon'#) Explam'any YES'answers andlor.any recommendations or any`other comments:.
Use drawings of facility to better explarn.situations: use adchttdnal pages as necessary
�.. .,
tZ motor, C_Vk o" 44" 1n,tr wlos ��/ gpj
p f i]orY�- +aoh S-5h0vla he Ar j c.d aJ rc CPPdw). l rt(e�
V?�& Or\ lJov\ h S�WUO be. exWej. thlcl �IjQS c1rbs"4 , S�rn1�x err doer%iGR -sWd
(,),c aol- � qe� a,r- covve ed ... &L#� S� or. (OLVoh i) ;W d be, trseflW,
4
a
cc. Torsion of roarer vuaury, roarer muanty .3ecrron, scurry Assessment unit 41JV19 I

Site Requires Immediate Attend n: ND
Facility No.r
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: , 1995
Time: _ 13 ay
Farm Name/Owner: 1 1 s Fc,-�#'- J,
Mailing Address: too 3 `/ 5
County: .�
Integrator: C Phone Glc3Z_a 93 ` 3`13
On Site Representative: Phone:
Physical Address/Location: 9,0_ 13 o ;T h Z_ 1301
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: ooi3 Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: _° 0 d` ac? Longitude: :1° 0! S9, Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) &r No Actual Freeboard: + Ft_ Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or No Was any erosion observed? Yes or No
Is adequate land available for spray? e r No Is the cover crop adequate? e) or No
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? or No "
100 Feet from Wells? Yes or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes o No If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? eor No
Additional Comments: W AJA _ dc �,
P z-JC+Le-U
Inspector Name
- 6 2 Tu
g
Signatur
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.